SHEARING SHED "DISPUTES."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 217, 22 December 1910, Page 5

SHEARING SHED "DISPUTES."

A POINT OF LAW. By Telegraph,—Press Association. Dunedin, Last Night. In (giving judgment in the shearing shed hands' case, in which an award was refused, tihe Arbitration Court stated that the present case was governed toy a decision in a recent case in the Canterbury district, unless the recent amendment of the Arbitration Act has altered the law on the subject. "Section 3of the amending Act gives the Court power, in their discretion, to waive any technical irregularity or omission which may have occurred in the submission of the dispute to the Court. The point decided in the Canterbury case was that if, when the Union purported to refer a dispute for settlement, there was no dispute in existence at the time,' there was no jurisdiction to make an award. It was also decided that, for the purpose, of ascertaining whether there was a dispute or not, a dispute .between A and' B could not be treated as a dispute between C and D. The only question is whether the amending Act has altered the law as declared by the Court. It appears to us it has not. The power given by the Act is to waive any technical irregularity or omission, but the defec-t in the present case is not a technical irregularity or omission. It is a defect which goes to the jurisdiction of the Court. The language used by the Legislature clearly postulates an existing dispute which has been submitted for settlement. If there is not such a. dispute, then section 3 of the amending Act cannot apply. A dispute must exist When steps are taken to submit it for settlement.

Mr. McCullough does not concur in the judgment. His visw is expressed in the subjoined: "I desire to record my dissent from the decision. I am not prepared to discuss the legal point raised by His Honor from a legal point of view, but in my opinion this Court, being primarily an industrial court, is expressly authorised to settle those matters coming before it in equity and good conscience, and, as far as possible, to dispense with legal formalities. Taking this into consideration, together with the fact that Parliament apparently unanimously passed an Act to enable the Court to overcome legal obstacles which arose in Canterbury, I am unable to concur in the Court's refusal to make an award, believing the evident intention of the Legislature should have been given effect to and an award made."